Ok, we all know that the NCAA is such a paragon of virtue. They obviously are thoroughly vetting all those scurrilous alligations about UNC. And in another shining example of administrative brilliance comes this:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/2555611...
So, using this logic (term used quite loosely), would we have been able to hire Frank Beamer?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I understand this. If he gave up his foundation role I'm sure he would be allowed to be hired. But for him to keep that role AND be hired by a FBS P5 program as his first job reeks of problems and I understand why the NCAA said no.
Edit: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/4/15/11441884/marcus-latti...
^^^^^ This. He doesn't want to be a coach and he wants to keep his foundation, which includes considerable contact with potential recruits. This isn't just a matter of "you can't hire an alum", it's "the alum doesn't want to abide by the rules that apply to everyone hired by the school, regarding contact with potential recruits"
Yeah. I don't understand the Internet outrage on this one. Seems an obvious conflict.
But does Lattimore get paid for his other speaking engagements at other universities?
Come on.
You can't run a foundation that speaks to players and runs camps and be on a football staff.
It's a clear conflict of interest.
Absolutely. From the SB Nation article Fireman linked, this stands out (emphasis mine):
Handing money to recruits, even though the intent is benevolent, is a 100% indisputable conflict of interest. What people have to keep in mind is that COI is a very broad term, including any perception of undue influence. If Lattimore's name is on the foundation and/or he runs it, or any associated camps, while trying to be employed by SC, this is a no-brainer.
this one is easy; a person who runs a program that recruits beyond the scope of what the schools are allowed to do cannot be hired by the school
Read comments here first, thought they made sense.
Then read the article, thought "when you put it that way..."
Hi, I'm Frank, I played in a bowl game.
Hi, I'm Aaron, I played in the Super Bowl.
Hi, I'm Marcus, I help kids with injuries...whoa, whoa, you can't do that.
FTFY: Hi, I'm Marcus,
I help kids with injuriesrun camps, speak to recruits, and my organization gives them money, and I would simultaneously like to work for a college football program...whoa, whoa, you can't do that.That sounds about right to me.
I think the problem comes with "I give you money, and by the way, my employer is ________ team."
Additionally, Lattimore's involvement in the foundation could be used to skirt rules about contacting recruits, dead periods, etc. "I wasn't there as a rep of SC, I was there because of my organization."
Oh, I understand all that. I just don't think it's as simple as we're making it. Hand the reins over to someone else for your tenure.
But until some recruit says "Marcus Lattimore paid me to" or "the Lattimore organization persuaded me to go to USC," it's all appearances.
But appearance is reality as we say in the Navy, whether it really is or not. So tl;dr, I agree that it's a bad idea for him to hold both positions, but not because it's inherently bad.
It's just better to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Otherwise you get into the game of "yeah, he gave me money/goods/services, but it had nothing to do with my decision-making afterwards".
If he wants to help out high school students, I think that's great. When he starts mixing that with recruiting for one organization, it becomes similar to all other "well-meaning" organizations who would like to mix recruiting with the free exchange of dollars and allegiances.
It's a slippery-slope that's works better if we keep them separated.
this guy could easily have both. just sign the foundation over to someone else. take the coaching job. get both. think politician and super PAC, because they never coordinate anything ever. wink, wink, nudge, nudge
He would probably have to give up his speaking roles and salary also.
there are many other ways a foundation could funnel him money without paying a salary.
"Sure, that foundation is named after me, but I have nothing to do with it."
Who down voted this? Up'd to cancel out.